jason
-
Posts
8,658 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by jason
-
-
Urlacher Threatens to Hold Out from Minicamp. Panic in the Streets.
May 14th, 2008 Tom Shannon Posted in Da Bears | No Comments » Edit |
The Bears
Brian Urlacher told Michael Silver at Yahoo Sports that he probably will sit out mandatory mini-camp and is thinking about sitting out training camp:
“’But this is the NFL, and if I’d signed it and I’d played like (expletive), they’d have cut me or tried to get me to take less. In my mind, there’s no difference. If they can ‘break’ a contract, I have a right to ask for more if I play well enough.’”
If you play like (expletive) you walk away with a $13 million signing bonus, Brian, and the Bears are offering $5 million more as part of an extension.
“’They’re killing me in Chicago,’ he said. ‘I think I should just go ahead and retire.’”
Urlacher was presumably joking. But if he skips training camp I’m seriously wondering if the Bears shouldn’t call the bluff of a guy who was once called the most overrated player in the NFL and let him go ahead and do it. That way he could sit at home and “cuddle up with his fiance” all year long instead of worrying about leading those pesky teammates who bleed with him every week in the Fall.
I have no patience for jerks who want the security of a long-term contract, then regret the terms of the deal later. None.
Bingo. I don't see why the athletes don't see this. It's not an equal two way street. If it were, not only would the owners be allowed to cut them, but they'd also be allowed to take a hefty portion of the signing bonus back.
-
By well do you mean running straight up the middle into a huge pile and failling backwards?
I agree with you on this: the coaching staff greatly misused him last season. I really don't know what to make of him since he didn't play much, and when he did he was ineffective.
Of course when your offense is pathetic . . .
C'mon dude! You can't be serious. That's like saying, "You know, I think that TJ Duckett guy sucks because his runs around the edge aren't productive." Wolfe can only do what he is permitted to do, and if the dumbass coaches put him in and call plays into the gut of an already stout run-defense, then there's not a lot he can do. Also, don't forget the fact that even the bigger RBs had trouble running between the tackles for the Bears last year.
What I'm trying to say is, the guy did well with what he had to work with. He broke off a handful of decent runs in very limited opportunities, and he looked like he had explosive possibilities in the passing game.
-
Rookie RB Chris Johnson is making an impression on the Titans. "We were out there making up routes for him," Titans offensive coordinator Mike Heimerdinger says. "I've never had a guy that can do (the things he can). You need to be able to take advantage of the guy." He's pretty small so the Titans will still need LenDale White to run inside. Johnson is for the Titans what the Bears hope Garrett Wolfe will be. If the light comes on.
Great wrap-up. I enjoyed it quite a bit.
As for the above thoughts, I can only hope you mean that the light needs to come on in the mind of Turner and the rest of the Bears' coaching staff, and not the little guy Wolfe, who did well every time he was put in the game last year.
-
Not sure on the exact laws, but you can get a BWI if you are water skiing. You can get a BWI on a sail boat. In the case of an anchored boat, I'm not sure on. Someone still needs to be responsible for that boat at all times. The boat will still drift even if anchored, thus similiar to the sail boat. If the boat was in a slip, or tied up to a dock, the rules may be different.
With the case of Benson, I can see the water patrol approach the boat and ask "who is the captain of this boat". Cedric steps forward and says "I am sir". The water patrol does the regular safety inspection, interacting with Cedric while doing the routine. The water patrol sees alcohol containers and can see a little affect on Cedric. If Cedric wasn't so cooperative, the water patrol may have decided to straighted him up by giving him the field sobriety test.
BWAAAHAHAHAHA....
Water Skiing while intoxicated?!
-
I've suddenly been distracted by this Benson thing...remind me who he is and what happened?
-
[Point is sometimes these guys just do stuff to do it. And I'm not one to stay quiet when I think I'm being jerked around, cop or not.
Dude, in other cases that stuff would get you jailtime at the minimum and or much worse in many cases. The situation is just different. One of my white friends was telling me the other day about how he was arguing with a cop who pulled him over for speeding. He swore that it was the guy in front of him and they ended up cursing back and forth. He got two tickets, but nothing else.
There's no way I would EVER curse or argue with a cop even if I know it's BS. The margin of error is WAY too high for me to do anything close to that. Just the way it is.
If that really happened, he must have run into the biggest stiff in the history of the police force. I have several friends who are cops, in small towns as well as in big cities, and you can guaran-damn-tee that if someone starts arguing getting an attitude, they're going to find something with which to charge them.
On the other hand, if a friend of mine told me this story, I'd probably call BS. Like you, I'd just take the ticket and be on my way. There are very, very few people who will mouth-off to a cop.
-
Where my comparison fails? Okay, how about this one. As you know, I live in Texas. Here in Texas we are a pickup truck state. To hell w/ gas prices. No clue about other places, but a popular thing to do, especially in small towns, is drive out to a field for a party. Often you have people siting on chairs in the bed of their truck, w/ the keys in the ignition so the radio can play. This is also a very normal sight on the beach in Padre. Anyway, the owner of the truck can be on the truck, keys in the ignitiion, but the truck is in park and no one behind the wheel. Is that a good comparison?
In that situation, the driver will NOT get a DWI. He might get an open container, unless he is smart enough to poor his beer into an open cup. I do not understand why, but it is legal to have a cup of beer in the car (not the driver) but an open can of the same substance is against the law. Point is, the owner of the car may be written up for several violations, but DWI is NOT one of them.
If Benson was hit w/ an open container violation, I could understand. If he were hit w/ public intoxication, it would make sense. But I am sorry, DWI? I don't claim to be an expert on DWI laws, but I will bet you that charge does not stick. If it is true the boat was parked and Benson not behind the wheel at the time the police came aboard, no judge will convict him, whether he was drunk or not. The defense for this would simply be far too easy. Hell, all he has to say is his mother was going to drive the boat home. As no one check his mother, or anyone else, for intoxication, there is no way to say they were not a designated driver.
That's a much better comparison, and I've agreed with this idea in the past. The big charges will get dropped, and they'll end up playing in the gray area to get him on some little things.
-
I would argue that your extreme opposite thought process causes problems too. To ignore that racism exists is extremely narrow minded.
I'm not sure why you say he is beyond reason. He has experienced police brutality. Obviously that experience will have an impact on his perspective of such situations.
Reread his original statement. With that as the precursor for the rest of the post, the rest of his personal experience(s), however valid and/or true they may be, become something that should be ignored.
-
Yeah okay. Please specify what exactly I said that what was beyond reason or "so stupid". Nothing I said was based on a conspiracy. I used PERSONAL experience to back up my statements. My "free game" and "beatings come with an arrest" were tongue in cheek and meant to stress a point.
Of course, white guys get arrested all of the time. They just normally don't get beat up or killed in the process. I believe that YOUR line of thinking is what keeps this kind of stuff going. According to you, it's all in our imaginations. We're just making all of this up. We don't advance beyond this point because most people don't think there is a problem at all.
I guess my eyes have been lying to me and those who witness/document excessive force by the police all suffer from the same imagination disorder.
Since we're sending videos. Why don't you check out this video from Monday. Be careful, you imagination may start playing tricks on you.
As soon as you posted the following, you lost credibility:
Doesn't really matter. What's the big deal. Black men are free game for police abuse. We all know that a beating must come with an arrest or a police encounter.That's the conspiracy theory, painting the picture as if every black man is just free game for widespread police abuse. Racism exists from all races, but your opening statement is ignorant.
-
-
These really have nothing to do with this case because Benson was not asleep behind the wheel of his boat and drinking on the deck of a parked boat is not illegal.
I'm not saying he was asleep. My point was that he was in the boat, and according to the cops, had alcohol in his system.
There are gray areas here, and I don't claim to know them all. However, your flat statement of "drinking on the deck of a parked boat is not illegal" does not even allow for gray areas.
It's not illegal to drink at a bar, but if you walk outside and act stupid, you sure as hell can get a public intox. Gray areas.
I suspect that in the end, that is what it will all come down to.
-
Regarding "sleeping it off", that I would call different because the individual is behind the wheel of the car. Also, it sort of depend on the situation. If the car is parked outside a bar, then it likely is not going to be a DWI. If the car is on the side of the road, then the obvious belief is the driver drove the car to that point, and if drunk, DWI. But this is all different from a person simply being on the boat he owns, and the boat being at anchor.
As for possession, no, I have never heard of that. If there are drugs, or the like, in the car but not on a person, then yes, the owner of the vehicle gets the charge, but not if the drugs on on the possession of someone else in the car, which you allude to. regardless, this is not a logical step to the DWI laws. If a passenger in the car is drunk, does the driver get a public intoxication charge? No.
I agree it is easy to compare boating to driving in terms of DWIs, but that is the whole point. The boat was at anchor (parked). While Benson is the owner, he was not the driver and not behind the wheel. Consider this. You and your friends go out, and you drove your car. At the party, cops test you, and because you had a vehicle there, they arrest you for a DWI. To me, that would be the more logical comparison. Problem is, there is no way to know whether or not you would have driven the car. At some point during the party, you could have agreed to have one of your friends remain sober and drive your car.
If Benson was behind the wheel and driving the boat, there is no question this would be a DWI issue. Whether or not Benson was drunk would be key, but it would be a DWI issue. But the boat being at anchor changes things IMHO.
I think where you comparison fails is that Benson is the owner of the boat, and he was on the boat at the time. I believe my comparison to be much more realistic. In the car, in the boat...it's fairly similar.
As for whether a driver gets charged with possession or anything like that, my main purpose was to show that it's very likely to get in trouble in the driving world if someone is simply in their vehicle while drunk, and the keys are in the ignition. Or, similarly, if there are open containers in the car at a passenger's feet. IF the laws between DUI and BUI are similar, simply because the boat was anchored does preclude someone on that boat from the problems related to BUI.
-
OFFENSE:
WR - Bradley TE - Clark LT - Williams LG - St. Clair C - Kreutz RG - Garza RT - Tait TE - Olsen WR - Hass
QB- Rex
RB - Benson
K - Gould
P - Maynard
DEFENSE:
CB- Tillman LE - Ogunleye DT - Harris DT - Dorvacek RE - A. Brown CB - Vasher
LOLB - Hillenmeyer MLB - Urlacher ROLB- Briggs
SS - Steltz
FS - Brown
RESERVES -
DE - Anderson, Bazuin,
DT - Adams, Idonije, Toenia
CB - Mcbride, Bowman, Manning Jr.
LB - Williams, Wilson, LaRocque
SS - Payne
FS - Mcgowan, Manning
OL - Oakley, Reed, Beekman, Mannelly
QB - Orton, Hanie
RB - Forte, Peterson
WR - Booker, Bennett, Monk, Hester
TE - Davis
FB - Mckie
IR - Baldwin, Harrison, Barton
Hass? C'mon, man. I like the idea of us finding a steal, too, but there is no way in hell the guy starts. I could give you a hundred reasons why it's not going to happen.
-
Doesn't really matter. What's the big deal. Black men are free game for police abuse. We all know that a beating must come with an arrest or a police encounter. Gimme a break. Most people turn a blind eye to this stuff because it's not likely to happen to them, their sons, friends or brothers. Their folks never come home beaten up after getting roughed up by the cops and then let go; or ever got the crap choked out of them by a police baton (I witnessed the first, was the "chokee" in the second) Better yet, they'll just deny that this stuff even happens at all. Everyone is just making it up. The recent case in Philly, the Sean Bell case in NYC.....I can go on and on. The due process that everyone is screaming for isn't granted by the police who many times abuse their authority when they think they have an easy, indefensible target. After looking at the picture on the Trib, are you guys really that surprised that they got stopped by the police? A whole bunch of black guys, some with dreadlocks on an expensive boat with a bunch of white girls. They were almost begging to be pulled over. Nothing will come of this. It's all "he said/she said" and people will always give cops the benefit of the doubt. Even when video evidence is there, they'll say "let's not rush to judgement. We don't know how much they were resisting arrest". Everyone can go back to sleep now.
Thank you for at least showing you are far beyond reason, and far too deep into conspiracy theories, to actually look at anything from this point on without being ridiculous. It's specifically this line of thought that causes more problems than it fixes, blaming everything on racism, the man, and the system. I'd suggest listening to the ideas of Chris Rock before posting something so stupid again:Aside from the "white friend" part (because white people NEVER get arrested
) , the rest is a fairly safe set of rules to follow. -
first of all what a biased load of crap by whoever wrote this article. it's clearly written to garner sympathy for the law enforcement/DNR by putting in useless garbage about how much money benson has etc.
that said.... if what i am reading is correct it appears that benson's boat was at anchor. if that is the case then these "law enforcement" clowns have NO right what-so-ever to single out ONE person on a non-moving boat for any sobriety test, period. although they could and can ask to see that each vessel has a fire extingisher, whistle (if appropriate), coast guard certified life jackets for every person on board and functioning running lights IF dark, and the boat is away from it's docking slip on public waterways. but that is ALL.
being a non-moving vessel at anchor, who is to say which person on board will be the operator when the vessel leaves? the owner of the boat is NOT subject to sobriety if he is not the moving vessels operator. even if drunk at the time he was checked there would be no possible way that they could determine that he would have operated the boat in the future under the influence OR if he was indeed intoxicated operating his boat to get to the anchorage.
in fact even if ALL the people onboard were drunk who is to say they wouldn't have CAMPED in that spot until they were sober thus not creating a danger or violating any laws. by not checking all the people onboard for sobriety the discriminated against cedric benson.
this clown DNR punk more than likely just wanted to get his name in the paper.
i would also like to add that continually checking someone for safety equipment OR fishing licenses time after time by the same officer is harassment. legal harassment? maybe but certainly harassment.
Have you never heard of a guy being arrested for "sleeping it off" while in his car with keys in the ignition?
Have you never heard of the owner of a car being charged when someone in the car has possession of something illegal, or is otherwise doing something illegal?
I don't claim to know the law on boating ordinances that well, but it seems like a fairly easy and logical step to compare DUI-related laws to BUI-related laws.
-
I was just wondering what players everyone wanted to start?
I hope that the following comes true:
-QB: Kyle Orton
-RB: Cedric Benson
-WR: Bradley, Booker, Bennett
-TE: Olsen
Other thoughts about who you want to start?
-
lol There is one thing to be cool when trouble is brewing. There is completely another to be frikin Eeyore.
You pay for bad service, bad serive and food? If you bought a LCD and it didn't work you would just eat $2000?
Come on, man.
You talk about all that stuff like its a good thing. You get punked in the eye at a bar and dont press charges? Thats assault.
Well hearing all that maybe you would let the cops harass you all the time, but 99% of people wouldn't without saying something. Its not against the law to get pissed at cops, especially if they are abusing their power.
I obviously don't bite the bullet on big price things like that. Nobody who isn't rich does that. And I agree it's not against the law to get pissed at cops. But it is against the law to resist them in any capacity, and I wouldn't do it. I was once cuffed and it took about 2 seconds. I just think that people tend to complain and jump to conclusions too quickly nowadays. It's typical in our culture. Nobody is to blame for their actions any more, and the first thing most people do is start blaming.
-
Really? Well you sure are a patient guy. Somehow, given the personality of your posts, I doubt you wouldn't say something if the same cops stopped you every time out for a "safety" check of your boat.
Who knows why officers do what they do? I have two friends that are cops. One is a perfect guy. Polite when he pulls people over and everything. Doesn't break the law.
The other guy is one that speeds with his lights on while driving down the street for no reason. Throws attitude at the people he pulls over, because "he can". Basically thinks he is above the law.
So just like in life, there are many different types that are cops.
It's odd. I see where you are coming from, and see how you could think that about me. I'm quite outspoken, and very vocal. However, I know when trouble is brewing. I wouldn't say a word, believe it or not, if put in Benson's situation. I never send food back that sucks. I almost never say anything about bad service, a bad product, etc. I just chalk it up to a loss and choose not to frequent the places that screw me over. About a year and a half ago I was at a bar, didn't say a word to anyone all night outside of my few friends, was very quiet, and when I walked out that night I got sucker-punched in the eye. I didn't say a word. Nothing was wrong medically after the black eye went away, and I didn't even press charges.
-
I have addressed this before, but what she heard is relevant, as it IMHO seems to better coincide w/ Benson's version than the cops. The cops version was that Benson basically fought the cop the entire way. Benson was rude, loud and cussing through out most of the situation. If that was so, I think it logical that she would have been able to hear that, but per her testimony, she didn't hear Benson until after he was sprayed. Far from smoking gun evidence in support of Benson, but also relevant. I question your flat dismissing her comments simply because she did not see anything. Have you ever been to a trial? Hearing what a person says is often as important as seeing what a person does.
Further, she said her boyfriend, fiance or whatever, took pictures of the situation, and said those pictures will further support Benson's side of the story. No idea yet what those pictures are, but if they do not support Benson's version, do you think she would have mentioned them?
Yes, I am sure it is. But what she heard, yes, heard again, matters. Per the cops, Benson was cussing at this point. Per Benson, he was still using the word please, not cussing, and still trying to be polite. Per the girl, he did in fact use the word please as he asked for his mother to be present. Further, just listen to what she said Benson said. That does not sound like a guy on the attack, but a guy scared due to the situation.
While I agree it is odd, at the same time, I would argue it fits in w/ the idea of profiling and prejudice. This was in heat of the moment, as opposed to a day later coming up w/ a defense for a professional athlete.
Sure, bogus 911 calls are made all the time. Still, as a part of the rest of the parts, I think it does matter.
Regarding prejudices, we all have them at play here. I have no issue w/ police what so ever. I do still like Benson, and thus am more likely willing to look beyond the police report. At the same time, let me say this. When I first heard of the arrest, my thoughts were of Benson acting like a thug, and that he has grown nada since leaving school. Basically, my initial thought was of leinart, but far worse. So while I like Benson, that did not prevent me from automatically slapping blame to him. Then the next day, I read more and more that just seemed "off", and the more time that passes (which has not been much) the more info that comes out that just adds questions.
So I admit I have bias, but at the same time, that bias did not prevent me from initially believing he was guilty. Where I question you is, it seems there are quite a few issues at play that are (at minimum) questionable, and yet you do not seem willing to even consider them. A girl comes forward, and you immediately dismiss her. I swear, if she were standing right there and saw (as well as heard) everything, I do not think that would matter to you. For you, it is simple. Cops word v whoever else, and no matter what, you take the cops.
And by the way, I have said this before too, but if this were a DPS officer or Texas Ranger, or the like, I might be more inclined to agree w/ you, but LCRA authorities simply do not get blind faith in my eyes.
The highlighted part is the entire issue. I have no problem with people bringing up new evidence, and if she has it, then more power to her. I believe what I see. Until then, I think it just makes a lot more sense to side with officers serving in any legal capacity, than it does to side with Benson. Also, think of this...what do the officers have to gain from this? What do the officers really get out of this? I can easily see how someone would side with their friend, even lie, in order to get their friend out of trouble. After all, snitches get stitches. Why wouldn't someone say something? Furthermore, if there were that many people on the boat, why is it that there is just this lone voice supporting Benson.
Other than the fact that Benson disagrees with the officers' side of the story - which isn't all that surprising since nearly every person in prison will tell you they are innocent - and Benson has a single "witness" come out to talk about what she heard, I don't see the "few issues at play that are (at minimum) questionable". Hell, I'd say that's par for the course.
-
Yeah but if it was you and every time you took your boat out they stopped you, wouldn't you get pissed too. I would because that is harassment. And I would absolutely give attitude.
Sounds to me like they took him off the boat so there would be no witnesses to what went on.
I guess that's where I differ from you, and others. I'd be pissed, but I wouldn't get lippy or give attitude. I'd simply go along with what was happening, and then calmly report it up the chain when given the opportunity. If that didn't work and the same thing happened the next time, I'd go one step up the chain. Eventually, I'd reach someone who cared enough to do something about it.
Your thoughts add another question in my mind...
If this happened so frequently, why did the officers go after him on this day, when there were people all throughout his boat, when his mother was there? Wouldn't it have made more sense to get him on a day with less witnesses? I mean, if that's the conspiracy theory, it sure seems like these guys picked one of the worst days ever to start trouble. Furthermore, if this happened as frequently as Benson has stated, why is this the first time someone has heard of this issue? Surely if he were that perturbed, then he would have spoken up before now.
-
Wow, Jason. A girl comes forward as a witness to an event and you automatically think it was colluding?
So you believe Benson and the girl had this plan of:
A)planting her on the boat that day knowing he'd get pulled over like he had the past 6 times he went out
B)enticing these cops into spraying him
C)calling her dad and telling him to call 911 and specifying it was her black friend getting beat up
D)digging up dirt on the cop to make him seem racist
Look, I'm not saying the girl can't be lying, but why on earth would your first reaction be to think she was? The 911 call should be tangible evidence, and if it exists, seems to give her version of events at least a little credit since it was made THE MOMENT the event occured. Is it possible the 22 year old girl who had a couple of beers had the foresight to have this 911 call made as a possible allibi to a story her and Benson would later agree upon? Sure, that's possible, but c'mon. I'm not saying believe her outright, but your mind seems to already be made up that she is a liar.
No offense, but I gotta agree with Nfo. Your dislike of Benson and unwavering willingness to take the LCRA at their word despite legitamite questions about harrasment being raised, seems to be clouding your judgement.
My point is, this kind of thing happens all the time. It happens even more when professional athletes, or high-profile people are involved. It gets to be more about the people arresting than the people being arrested.
Plain and simple, the girl said she didn't see anything. I don't give a shit what she heard. It's perfectly normal for someone to make a scream of some kind when getting pepper sprayed. The other thing that sounds odd to me, and others, is that she randomly threw in the "black friend" thing. Why didn't she just say friend?
As for the 911 call, I don't care about that either. People call 911 for everything nowadays. And as far as situations like this go, all you have to do is go to youtube and look at the "don't taze me bro" videos to hear morons yelling at the cops, and claiming abuse/brutality. This is especially true of college-aged kids who think they have a grasp on the law, and believe themselves to be precious little snowflakes who can't be touched/harmed/apprehended, and generally above the law.
Your sequence of events is beyond what I think or propose.
A)She was probably just a friend on the boat.
B)The spraying happened, and she didn't see it. It had nothing to do with her being there.
C)Since she said that she didn't see it, I don't see why she thought her friend was being "beat up". Sounds to me like a person who cries wolf the first time they hear anything that disturbs their delicate ears. This is especially true, and understandable, when it's a friend.
D)Once again, the digging up of dirt has nothing to do with her being there. In fact, it has nothing to do with her. However, it will not surprise me in the least if race becomes a factor very soon in this case, as it often does, as a way of confusing the issue.
Last but not least, I admit that my dislike for Benson factors into my opinion on the subject; although, I was just about the only one on board (and nfo) saying that the Bears shouldn't draft a RB early. Conversely, I think that the general disdain for police officers, and those in similar positions, by many on this board heavily clouds judgement on the other side.
-
Jason - I'm not sure this will get past a preliminary trial. I think the key thing will be whether the boat was anchored or not. If the boat was anchored, nobody was driving the boat and therefore nobody can be charged with BWI. I don't think they will be able to sustain a charge.
If the witness is correct in that he'd only had 2 drinks. It sounds like he had at least one of them while the boat was anchored. Drinking in and of itself isn't illegal. Getting lippy with a rent-a-cop isn't illegal either.
It sounds to me like Benson might have had a bit of an attitude, but that's irrelevant because they had no underlying cause to arrest him. It sounds to me like they are simply trying to justify what they did to him and are calling it "resisting arrest". If the underlying charge doesn't exist, they had no cause to arrest him in the first place. If that's the case, this all goes away and the rent-a-cops are going to look silly.
The first part I agree with. It won't get past the beginning stages of anything serious. This got big in a hurry, and I'm sure that all involved want to sweep it under the rug.
You are correct on the second part as well. Neither drinking or getting mouthy with a cop is illegal. However, I'm sure that there is some sort of loophole in there like public intoxication. I don't buy the two drinks garbage, and it seems unlikely that they would say all the things they said about Benson unless they had something to back it up.
The last part is where I think there is the wiggle room. Your "what if" of the boat being anchored could end up making the officers' case moot, but until it's known that the boat was anchored, then I don't think the case can be tossed. Furthermore, people can get DWI/DUI or something similar if they are drunk, sitting in the car, and their keys are in the ignition. I'm sure there has to be something similar for boating. Additionarlly, there is a reason to board the boat and test Benson. There is also a reason to take him off of his boat to administer the tests. If he resisted either, then there is an easy case for resisting arrest, and I have no problem with the officers giving him the pepper-face.
-
They have the right to take your blood, w/o your permission, w/o a court order? Sounds like a constitutional violation to me.
Even cop friends of mine say, you do not ever blow if you have had anything to drink. They tell me that a single beer can be enough, if for example you have had nothing to eat, or whatever. Point is, you may believe you are no where close to drunk, but legally, you may not be correct.
I remember a bar I used to go to in college that had a breathalizer set up at the door. On your way out, you could blow to check and see if you were cool. The good in this was obvious. The bad was guys who would blow after every drink, pushing the limit as much as possible.
Anyway, I think it would shock many how much/little it takes before you are drunk in the eyes of the law.
I don't claim to be a Constitutional scholar, but I'm 100% you are wrong on this one.
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Case closed, your honor.
-
Sounds odd to me. Why would she say "black friend", like that would make things any different?
Seems odd to me also. I think they are colluding to set up some sort of racial case to get Benson out of trouble. Expect to find out some allegedly shady stuff about the arresting officer, and the probability that he dropped the "N-Bomb", allegedly, when in private.
Sounds like a bunch of BS to me.
"It's more what I heard than what I saw. I have never heard or seen Cedric that scared."
So, in other words, STFU, you didn't see anything.
The arrival of LCRA police perturbed Benson because of the frequency of the checks on his 30-foot boat, Cartwright said.
When Benson's boat passed the safety inspection, Cartwright said she and her fiance were surprised the officer then required a sobriety test for Benson.
Perturbed? Sounds to me like it's very possible that someone had an attitude.
If the officers have been on his boat numerous times, then that also needs to be addressed. However, it sounds very likely that Benson had an attitude; his biggest defender even says so.
As for why they took him off the boat, an easy answer for me is from the police report. They smelled alcohol on him. Once this was true (if true), then it makes more sense to remove him from his boat, around his friends and family, and in a more controlled environment.
Greg Olsen
in Bearstalk
Posted
Anyone have the content to the ESPN Insider article mentioning Olsen?
Olsen Article